So they should just pick and choose which laws they strike down? That makes a lot of sense... then there wouldn't be any limit on their power (or potential abuse of it). I like it just fine as it is now, thanks.



Or that nobody was actually harmed for there to be a case for the Supreme Court to review...

If there had been any indictments as a result of the "wiretaps" the Supreme Court would have ruled. There weren't, so they couldn't. At least that's how I saw it.

as long as the records are sealed

you do not know if anyone has been harmed

but just keep falling in line behind the mama goose

Yeah, except I just said there weren't any indictments. That would be the harm...

you just keep telling ourself that

adj4u - The severe frustration caused by your continual insistence that you are right is becoming quite painful.

You are making a pragmatic argument while discussing a legal question. No law is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is. Only they have the legal power to so declare a law invalid. (I know that this usurps a lot of power from you, but even if you were an American citizen you still would not have the power to proclaim laws unconstitutional).
As a body, the Supreme Court is both restricted and given discretion in which issues it may decide. It may choose not to decide on certain issues before it for basically any reason it chooses. However, it may NOT reach out and grab an issue which was not present before it. Like wiley mentioned, this would be a gross perversion of the balance of powers which form the fundamental basis of our government. Along those same lines, the Court is bound by stare decisis to reject any case before it which is not properly presented.
In order to be properly presented, a case must be brought by a plaintiff who has a significant interest in the outcome of the case because they have been harmed by the unconstitutionality of the law. Example: I could NEVER EVER challenge a law which discriminated against women. Despite the fact that it may seem blatantly unconstitutional, it does not harm me, and thus I am not a proper plaintiff. Even if everyone in the world agreed that it was an unconstitutional law, the Court would still need to uphold a dismissal of the case and deny certiorari if it was brought by me.
I understand that it's frustrating to see a borderline unconstitutional law go unchallenged in the Supreme Court for what seems like a technicality, but those precedents are set there for numerous very good reasons, and they represent the procedure which the Supreme Court must abide by. You are championing the Constitution fervently, but seem to fail to recognize that allowing the Supreme Court to overstep its bounds is, in itself, unconstitutional!

that may be so sox man

but i must say it is a good thing

franklin washington hamilton hale jefferson and the others

did not have your caual attitude towards injustices

thrown upon the people

and no i am not comparing myself to them

Ok this is it, then I am retiring from this thread for good because it gives me high blood pressure:

What I have been saying is not my opinion. It's not. Not my opinion. My opinion, it is not. It does not constitute my opinion. What I said...not my opinion. Clear?

It's the law.

Like I said, write an angry letter to the Supreme Court, not me. I didn't make it that way, and it's not my opinion.

Does the fact that the ACLU was founded and headed by a devout communist mean anything to you? Once again the liberal socialists are calling the conservatives fascists. The fascists have always been and always will be liberals. Do your homework and check the history books.

what does the party of the aclu have to do with the unconstitutionality of the law ???????

Thank you, thank you, thank you

Lindyy

Not all socialists are communists, Baldwin was publicaly anti soviet union.

http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html

This is regardless anyhow, the ACLU is a very important orginisation for protecting equal/ civil rights, they helped me fight religious discrimination personaly. When you become the minority and have your rights imposed upon, I somehow think you'll probably seek the help of the ACLU;^]

The ACLU is the National Enquirer in the legal world...they make ambulance chasing lawyers look like respectable people..

And your experiance with the ACLU is?;^]

they are on the news all the time...do I need to be one of their poster clients to know what they are all about?

and here's an example....

ACLU Applauds Repeal of Anti-Immigrant Ordinance in Riverside, N.J.
The ACLU praised the Riverside, N.J., township council for voting to repeal an unlawful ordinance that would have punished landlords and employers for renting to or employing individuals it classified as "illegal" immigrants.
> ACLU Applauds Repeal of Anti-Immigrant Ordinance in Riverside, N.J.

Well I have been a client, they have done tons of good in the states here. But I guess when they investigated the KKK for burning occupied churches in missisipi they must've been wrong there too, even though those three civil rights workers layed down their lives. You only look stupid when you get caught talking about something you know nothing about;^]

well I think that it was the FBI who investigated the church burnings....

Maybe you just don't understand because you're observing from a distance. See Mississipi Burning;^]